Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 751 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Are Quantum computers just analog computers under a new name?

Philip Oakley
There is plenty of scientific buzz about quantum computing, but almost no engineering.


I'm just old enough to remember the Analog computer (with patch cords and amplifiers) in the back of the of my university electronics lab, with an Intel 8008 in the other.


At that time 'analog' was coming to an end, and digital computing was coming to the masses with all its new languages and special logic (pascal, algol being new kids on the block to replace the veritable FORTRAN).


Now I see that Quantum computing is all the rage, if only someone can get it working, and fathom how to progamme it. However the question remains: "What is the 'it' of which we speak?".


I would posit that what we have a just a new way of interconnecting an 'analog' computer, where the 'feedback'/coding is meant to take the initial random noise, amplify and select the appropriate components, and finally stabilise on some particular bias level that indicates our solution. Hopefully with minimal energy or power consumed by the computation (apart from the cost of running the refrigerator at near 0K).


Where is the engineering explanation and conceptuallisation of Quantum computing?, and Is it just a new fangled Analog computer?


Thoughts...
Parents
  • 0
    Part of the issue is that there is a lot of smoke and mirrors, with no suitable analogies provided, for the magit "Qubits" and their connections. Try looking at any of the general articles that aren't 'hard nuclear physics' and it's almost all whitewash that is not sutable for engineers (that's in A1/A2 on the CPD scale;-), hence the engineering question.


    In many ways, folks familiar with analog had similar issues with the change to digital (Boole was long dead before is 'ridiculous' maths came back in vogue ;-).


    In some ways the quantum phenomena are just 'noise' (probability distributions and other analogies) and the Qubit (0,1) end points are just saturated/stabilised amplifiers. (with perhaps a pair of cross coupled amps for memory). i.e. we could simulate them in analog.


    Another issue in the discussions is 'entanglement', which is discussed as if the key aspect is to try to entangle quantum phenomena, when (as I understand it) the problem is to disentangle the quanta sufficiently that each is separate, and then to [very] carefully make the quanta interact (be just entangled).


    So that the analog computer 'simulation' will, as it did in the past, after a transient phase, stabilise on the expected system configuration / state. Entanglement then becomes patch cord interconectivity between the quanta / analog process blocks.


    Those who have never used an analog computer probably don't quite get it, but it (Qubit computing) does feel like it has a lot of equivalences. Plus, historically, there were considerations of noise levels and stability requirements to ensure the analog system was solved.


    The old analog computers were usually single volt/current output signals, while some quantum phenomena may need multi-level (e.g. quaternion view of spins & states, as per Maxwell), but the idea is there.



    Are you aware of any good engineer level explanations, with suitable analogies, that take the computation mode and method to a technical level?
Reply
  • 0
    Part of the issue is that there is a lot of smoke and mirrors, with no suitable analogies provided, for the magit "Qubits" and their connections. Try looking at any of the general articles that aren't 'hard nuclear physics' and it's almost all whitewash that is not sutable for engineers (that's in A1/A2 on the CPD scale;-), hence the engineering question.


    In many ways, folks familiar with analog had similar issues with the change to digital (Boole was long dead before is 'ridiculous' maths came back in vogue ;-).


    In some ways the quantum phenomena are just 'noise' (probability distributions and other analogies) and the Qubit (0,1) end points are just saturated/stabilised amplifiers. (with perhaps a pair of cross coupled amps for memory). i.e. we could simulate them in analog.


    Another issue in the discussions is 'entanglement', which is discussed as if the key aspect is to try to entangle quantum phenomena, when (as I understand it) the problem is to disentangle the quanta sufficiently that each is separate, and then to [very] carefully make the quanta interact (be just entangled).


    So that the analog computer 'simulation' will, as it did in the past, after a transient phase, stabilise on the expected system configuration / state. Entanglement then becomes patch cord interconectivity between the quanta / analog process blocks.


    Those who have never used an analog computer probably don't quite get it, but it (Qubit computing) does feel like it has a lot of equivalences. Plus, historically, there were considerations of noise levels and stability requirements to ensure the analog system was solved.


    The old analog computers were usually single volt/current output signals, while some quantum phenomena may need multi-level (e.g. quaternion view of spins & states, as per Maxwell), but the idea is there.



    Are you aware of any good engineer level explanations, with suitable analogies, that take the computation mode and method to a technical level?
Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines